A longtime friend of Obama’s, Genachowski served as an adviser on technology policy during the 2008 campaign. During the Clinton administration, he served as chief counsel to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. He’s a ’Net Neutrality advocate. And more importantly, he’s generally well respected by industry and consumer-activist groups alike–something that wasn’t particularly true of former Chairman Kevin Martin. Under his leadership, industry insiders expect the FCC to be far more transparent than it was during Martin’s reign. Here’s hoping that proves true.

In an article in The Wall Street Journal today comes the news that “President- elect Barack Obama’s call to improve the nation’s broadband infrastructure has cable and phone company lobbyists maneuvering to get a leg up.”

To BoomTown, this is akin to Ebenezer Scrooge making his overnight transformation, except without any soul, sincerity or true intent to actually care about the consumer.

God help us, everyone.

Because if these same companies had been around during, say, the critical rollout of the federal highway system or universal telephone access, we’d all be tooling down dirt roads and talking via tin cans.

Still, a whiff of interest from a new administration–a move that is much too long in coming, due to a complete lack of leadership by the Feds, who have egregiously ignored exactly how important broadband ubiquity is to the U.S. economy–and we are apparently off to the races.

It’s high time, given, as the Journal article points out, “the U.S. has slipped to 15th from fourth place since 2001 in broadband penetration, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

We are tops in costs of these services, though!

Ouch.

Of course, the cable and phone giants are pushing for the government to pay for a lot of it–as they reap big bucks from high-penetration areas and try to get public dollars to pay for areas that have no broadband access.

As usual, the government will be the piggy bank–as it should have done much earlier–doling out tax credits and incentives and backing bonds, grants and vouchers.

Still, said the Journal, the cable and phone giants are bickering over the definition of speed, even as they continue to try to block public broadband projects and public-interest groups try to force the government to impose conditions on private companies.

So, while a new intent by the new leadership in Washington is a good thing, a little bah-humbug on the part of consumers is probably still in order.

Speaking of that, here are two videos of highlights of an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with outgoing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, along with Verizon Wireless head Lowell McAdam, about these very issues at last May’s D: All Things Digital conference.

Here are the videos:

Part 1

Part 2

Now Martin has circled back with a new version of his wireless broadband plan, one free of the content-filtering requirements that had made it so controversial. “[If filtering] is a problem for people, let’s take it away,” Martin told Ars Technica. “A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but [they were] concerned about the filter. Well, now there’s an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I’ve already voted for it without the filter now. So it’s already got one vote.”

If Martin can muster more support for this revised plan, it could be put up for a vote as early as Jan. 15.

Now Martin has circled back with a new version of his wireless broadband plan, one free of the content-filtering requirements that had made it so controversial. “[If filtering] is a problem for people, let’s take it away,” Martin told Ars Technica. “A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but [they were] concerned about the filter. Well, now there’s an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I’ve already voted for it without the filter now. So it’s already got one vote.”

If Martin can muster more support for this revised plan, it could be put up for a vote as early as Jan. 15.

…the licensee for the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum to provide–using up to 25 percent of its wireless network capacity–free, two-way broadband Internet service at engineered data rates of at least 768 kbps downstream. Additional obligations associated with the licensee’s free broadband service would include a requirement to provide a network-based filtering mechanism for the free Internet service in order to protect children and families.”

Quite a goal, “protecting children and families” from government-defined obscenity. A daunting one, though. As a wise man once said, “You can’t take something off the Internet…. That’s like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.” And in Internet porn’s case, it’s like trying to take it out of a cesspool.

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless (VZ) CEO Lowell McAdam jointly. We paired the two together to talk about big issues facing the wireless industry, including low broadband speeds and high prices.

The video of the interview is in three parts, all of which I have posted this week.

In this third part, Martin talks about net neutrality and the big political issues for technology, while McAdam talks about competition with AT&T and other rivals, and then both answer questions from the audience about early termination fees, getting dropped call data, eliminating subsidies and platform convergence.

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless (VZ) CEO Lowell McAdam jointly. We paired the two together to talk about big issues facing the wireless industry, including low broadband speeds and high prices.

The video of the interview is in three parts, all of which I will post this week.

In this second part, McAdam talks about the wireless giant’s open network initiatives and the impact of aggressive efforts by Google (GOOG) in the space, termination fees and subsidy issues, while Martin discusses the key issues the FCC will be facing, including the transition of the broadcast industry from analog to digital and network neutrality.

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s an interview Walt Mossberg and I did with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless (VZ) CEO Lowell McAdam jointly. We paired the two together to talk about big issues facing the wireless industry, including low broadband speeds and high prices.

The video of the interview is in three parts, all of which I will post this week.

In this first part, Martin talks about why broadband speed is so slow and prices are so high (the U.S. apparently has density issues!), the difficulty of getting consensus in Washington, D.C. and more open wireless networks, while McAdams discusses the challenges with local governments.

In essence, Comcast opens its customers’ mail because it wants to deliver mail not based on the address on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein.”

– Federal Communications Commission order

Saying it wants to “send a message to the industry that bad actors will end up being punished,” the Federal Communications Commission punished Comcast with a precedent-setting reprimand today for slowing some Internet traffic. “Comcast was delaying subscribers’ downloads and blocking their uploads. It was doing so 24/7, regardless of the amount of congestion on the network or how small the file might be,” said FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. “Even worse, Comcast was hiding that fact by making affected users think there was a problem with their Internet connection or the application. Today, the Commission tells Comcast to stop.”

Well, three-fifths of the Commission, anyway. There were two dissenting votes, which will almost certainly figure prominently in those legal options Comcast (CMCSA) says it is considering. From Commissioner Robert McDowell’s dissent:

For the first time, today our government is choosing regulation over collaboration when it comes to Internet governance. The majority has thrust politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions. It will be interesting to see how the FCC will handle its newly created power because, as an institution, we are incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds of Internet time. Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two-to-four years the ground rules could change depending on election results. Internet engineers will find it difficult, if not impossible, to operate in a climate like that. … Will other countries like China follow suit and be able to regulate American companies’ network management practices, with effects that could be felt here? How do we know where to draw the line given that the Internet is an interconnected global network of networks? Given the Internet’s interconnectivity, are we now starting a global race to the lowest common denominator of maximum government regulation, all in the name, ironically, of Internet freedom?”

And just how does the FCC propose to do this?

By asking Comcast to change its ways.

Rather than sanctioning the company, the FCC will require Comcast (CMCSA) to stop interfering with Internet traffic on its network, explain to the Commission how it has blocked such traffic in the past and publicly disclose how it plans to manage its network in the future. “We would tell Comcast that they have to stop engaging in that practice,” Martin said earlier this month. “They have to disclose to the commission where they are engaging in that practice.”

The proposal will be put to a final vote Aug. 1. If it’s approved it could set a precedent that will undoubtedly inspire other Internet service providers to rethink their “traffic management” practices as Comcast has.

But once the Commission’s done that, XM (XM) and Sirius (SIRI)–the only two satellite radio players in the market–can finally join to create the pay-radio monopoly they’ve long planned. “I was hoping to forge a bipartisan solution that would offer consumers more diversity in programming, better price protection, greater choices among innovative devices and real competition with digital radio,” said
Jonathan S. Adelstein, an FCC commissioner who’s opposed the merger on the grounds that it’s against the public interest to let the only two companies in a particular business combine. “Instead, it appears they’re going to get a monopoly with window dressing.”

But once the Commission’s done that, XM (XM) and Sirius (SIRI)–the only two satellite radio players in the market–can finally join to create the pay-radio monopoly they’ve long planned. “I was hoping to forge a bipartisan solution that would offer consumers more diversity in programming, better price protection, greater choices among innovative devices and real competition with digital radio,” said
Jonathan S. Adelstein, an FCC commissioner who’s opposed the merger on the grounds that it’s against the public interest to let the only two companies in a particular business combine. “Instead, it appears they’re going to get a monopoly with window dressing.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that Republican FCC member Deborah Taylor Tate has agreed to vote to approve the deal after winning several concessions from the companies involving enforcement issues. She would break a deadlock among the commissioners, who would then have voted to approve the deal by a 3-2 margin. According to the Journal, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disclosed the news this morning. “I think it’s fair to say an agreement in principle has been reached,” he said. “We’re still trying to work out the language.”

Read the rest of this post

According to Bloomberg, Adelstein said in a statement that the combination would create “a monopoly with window dressing.” Adelstein and Michael Copps, both Democrats, have voted no. Chairman Kevin Martin and Robert McDowell, both Republicans, have voted yes. That leaves the decision up to Tate–a Republican.

Read the rest of this post

Day One

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, Microsoft

You would have loved Windows 1.0. Walt. You would have LOVED it.”

–Ballmer

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Windows 7 Demo

Day Two

Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com

People loved their horses, too. But you don’t keep riding your horse to work just because you love it.”

–Bezos on the difference between physical books and digital ones

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Bobby Kotick, Activision

The social element has really transformed the gaming experience.”

– Kotick on the impact of games like Guitar Hero

Session post |  Video

Guitar Hero IV Demo with Tony Hawk and Paula Abdul

Howard Stringer, Sony

If we were any more successful, we’d be bankrupt.”

–Stringer on the success of Sony’s LCD business

Session post |  Video

Barry Diller, IAC

Hollywood is a community that’s so inbred, it’s a wonder the children have any teeth.”

Session post |  Video

Michael Dell, Dell

I could take him.”

–Dell on his chances of success in a brawl with Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Session post |  Video

Jerry Yang and Sue Decker, Yahoo

I will never be a CEO again.”

–Yang

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Jeff Bewkes, AOL

AOL is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Web. We don’t get no respect.”

Session post |  Video

Nathan Myhrvold, Intellectual Ventures

We invest in the creation of ideas… It’s like Baby Mama, with me as the mama.”

Session post |  Video

Demo: G.ho.st Web Operating System

Lets users access their desktop from any computer with an Internet connection.

Session post |  Video

Tom Glocer, Thomson Reuters

We have one great advantage over bloggers: we write once, and sell many times to many different media outlets.”

Session post |  Video

Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook

I won’t ever stop until you’re either the biggest thing around, or you’re dead.”

–Kara Swisher on her relentless coverage of Facebook

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation

I want to meet Obama. I want to know if he’s going to walk the walk.”

Session post |  Full Session Videos: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six

Day Three

Demo: evri

An application that graphs the Web via grammatical information.

Session post |  Video

Demo: 23andMe

Web-based, direct-to-consumer genome services.

Session post |  Video

Melinda Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

All lives are equal.”

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Demo: TransMedia’s Glide

A mobile-operating system that cuts across all operating systems.

Session post |  Video

Tom Rogers, TiVo

The TV set and its primary position in the home isn’t going anywhere in the future.”

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Demo: Deka

The “Luke Arm” prosthesis, a state-of-the-art bionic arm.

Session post |  Video

Kevin Martin, FCC and Lowell McAdam, Verizon Wireless

You’re the chairman of the FCC. How did you allow this to happen?”

–Walt Mossberg grills Martin on the lousy broadband situation in the States

Session post |  Videos: One and Two

Well, this should be interesting. Because of scheduling issues, Kevin Martin and Lowell McAdam will be interviewed at the same time. Will the two hit it off on issues of Net neutrality, early termination fees, open access or none of the above?

Kevin J. Martin is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, where he has served as a commissioner since 2001 and as chairman since 2005. During his term, he has conducted a balancing act between the interests of the technology and telecommunications industries. He mostly sided with Google (GOOG) in the effort to impose new openness rules on a large chunk of spectrum the FCC recently auctioned, and he has been publicly critical of the cable TV companies. He could be an important player in the battle over Net neutrality.

Lowell McAdam is president and CEO of Verizon Wireless (VZ), the nation’s second-largest wireless voice and data provider, and is chairman of the board of directors of CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade association and lobbying group. An engineer by training, Mr. McAdam has been an outspoken defender of the wireless industry’s practices, even when they have been criticized by the technology industry. However, he has recently launched an initiative to create a parallel “open” system at Verizon, which the company claims will allow any device and any application to operate on its network without interference from Verizon.

• Pulling up a chart that showcases the lousy broadband situation in the states, Walt kicks the conversation off with a hardball question for Martin: “You’re the chairman of the FCC,” says Walt. “How did you allow this to happen?” Big applause.
• Martin tries to dodge a bit, suggesting that the chart shows penetration. Walt corrects him, noting that what it actually shows are broadband speeds that are abysmal.
• Martin says he feels it’s important that we improve both penetration and speed. Walt is not letting him off that easy, jumping back in to point out that not only do broadband speeds in the states stink, but that we also pay as much as four times what people in other countries pay for better, faster broadband.

• Martin says we need a new and better definition for broadband.
• Kara asks about the political side to this issue. Should we treat broadband the same as we treat public highways? Martin says it’s something to consider, adding that we need to switch the system from a voice-grade one to a broadband-grade one. We should be subsidizing ONLY broadband services, not voice. (Hmm. Haven’t we subsidized them enough already? To the tune of $200 billion. See Nothing That a Two-Tiered Internet Couldn’t Fix, Right?)
• McAdam jumps in, noting the barriers that are delaying forward movement here. Martin parries, claiming that the FCC is working actively to remove these barriers.
• Walt asks if Martin has the statutory authority to streamline this process. Martin says he doesn’t know. Decisions like these are all in court right now.
• McAdam says there’s a tendency to think that carriers don’t want to deploy better services. We do, he says, but often, we’re held up by local government, which doesn’t like the location we’ve chosen for a tower, and whatnot.
• Moving on to spectrum auction and open access, Martin says open access is important, and that he’s heard that from not just entrepreneurs, but consumers as well. Martin talks about the open-access provision placed on the spectrum Verizon just won at the recent 700 MHz auction. Many advances this year: Sprint divesting spectrum to Clearwire. T-Mobile (DT) opening up, etc. “There’s been a significant change in the wireless industry just this year,” says Martin. “It’s embracing openness.”
• Kara asks if this isn’t in part due to Google and its efforts in the auction. McAdam: “Well, let’s not give them too much credit …” (Apparently, open access was really Verizon’s idea …)
• McAdam says Verizon has fully open devices in its labs right now. Walt asks when we’ll see them. McAdam: A few weeks. Walt asks why these devices are in Verzion’s lab at all. McAdam says Verizon needs to make sure they work on its network and don’t impact its customers.
• Walt brings up the pricing issue. You’ll essentially be running two pricing systems: the company-store system, which subsidizes handset purchases made with a long-term contracts, and the open system. Will consumers who use non-Verizon phones on Verizon’s network get the same level of support as those who use Verizon-subsidized ones? Walt asks. McAdam says yes. There’s no reason not to do any differently.
• Moving on to termination fees, Walt mentions recent class-action suits against wireless carriers. How do you justify charging people $200 for canceling their contracts early? Apparently, McAdam doesn’t need to: “We don’t do that anymore.” Verizon says it now pro-rates its phone subsidies and also offers customers the option of purchasing phones at a higher price, without a subsidy.
• But isn’t the subsidy just an artifact, something you did to increase cellphone penetration? McAdam agrees that it is and says he’d dump subsidies tomorrow if Martin and Co. made them illegal.
• Martin’s take on this issue? He feels consumers should have a window during which they can cancel their contract without penalty. Enough time to evaluate the service … say, a month or so.
• What’s the impact of changing to a model like this? Martin notes that these subsidies extend to other platforms like cable, and need to be carefully thought out.
• Kara: What’s the most significant technology issue the FCC will face after the next election? Martin replies that the transition from analog to digital TV will certainly be among them. He talks about the need to educate the public about the transition. Walt notes that there’s an enormous amount of public confusion around this. Martin agrees, but says it will dissipate when the public has been better educated.
• Another big issue is Net neutrality, says Martin. Kara: Well, you know what this crowd thinks about that, don’t you? Martin deadpans, notes that the FCC does have complaints before it about the issue. The commission needs to address in a constructive way the right of the consumer to have unfettered access to the Net. That said, he adds, broadband providers do need to be able to manage their networks.
• Walt asks McAdam about Verizon’s EVDO service and if Verizon is concerned about AT&T’s claim that it can double the speed of its offering with a simple software change. Walt recalls that AT&T (T) once told him Verizon and other carriers like it are stuck because they committed to CDMA. McAdam dismisses such assertions, claiming that there are a whole host of issues at play here. Deployment, devices, etc. He seems to feel CDMA has quite a bit of road left ahead of it.
• Kara asks Martin about innovation. Martin says he’s been walking a very careful line between innovation and regulation: We need to encourage investment in infrastructure and innovation, he says, but we also need to ensure that its fruits are regulated in such a way that they remain in consumers’ best interest.
• Moving on to the audience Q&A … Question about misleading coverage maps. McAdam notes that every carrier has a different metric for what constitutes wireless coverage. He’d love for there to be a standard that everyone can agree to, so that carriers could offer accurate coverage maps.
• Q: Shouldn’t fees for open-access customers be cheaper since they don’t require carriers to offer subsidies? McAdam says he’ll let the market decide that.

For more coverage, see The Wall Street Journal.

A note about our coverage: This live blog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations expeditiously written and posted to the Web as quickly as we were able. It was not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.